svchost.exe planned?

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
Bast
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:12 am

svchost.exe planned?

Post by Bast »

I just tried out 0.3.6, and watched the Task Manager, and I noticed the DHCP service, the PnP service and some other service I don't remember are running in their own process. Is a migration to something like svchost.exe planned, or are you planning to adopt the Unix-ish way of everything-has-it's-own-process?
aicommander
Developer
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:23 pm

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by aicommander »

svchost is already partially implemented in ReactOS
ReactOS Networking Developer
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
Twardon
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:25 am

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by Twardon »

is there any advantage of sticking that tight to windows-architekture?

In my opinion it would make more sense to build a stable OS with a windows-compatible api.
For the administrators it's better to have a lot of little processes, which can be restarted independently.

regards
Tobias
Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by Z98 »

In order to achieve compatibility, we have to stick closely to the design. Doing otherwise would just make more work.
SdC
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: GMT +1

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by SdC »

Twardon wrote:is there any advantage of sticking that tight to windows-architekture?

In my opinion it would make more sense to build a stable OS with a windows-compatible api.
For the administrators it's better to have a lot of little processes, which can be restarted independently.

regards
Tobias
Services are processes that can generally be restarted independently, according to dependency. System services that kernel modules depend on can not be restarted. Nothing wrong or missing with this aspect in the original NT design.
coldReactive
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:42 pm

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by coldReactive »

SdC wrote:Services are processes that can generally be restarted independently, according to dependency. System services that kernel modules depend on can not be restarted. Nothing wrong or missing with this aspect in the original NT design.
Some services auto-restart as soon as they are killed, like explorer.exe. Windows 98 and 95 had a problem where killing this process would cause it not to restart, and thus the shell would be shut down (however, the background of the desktop would still stay, just no menus, nor the desktop would show.) This would then force the user to manually shut down or restart the computer.

It is important to have auto-restarting processes for certain things because of that. Killing explorer.exe is a fancy way to refresh the shell or bring up the shut-down options, usually.

Also, sometimes processes have more than one instance of themselves. For example, svchost.
SdC
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: GMT +1

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by SdC »

Iyeru wrote:
SdC wrote:Services are processes that can generally be restarted independently, according to dependency. System services that kernel modules depend on can not be restarted. Nothing wrong or missing with this aspect in the original NT design.
Some services auto-restart as soon as they are killed, like explorer.exe. Windows 98 and 95 had a problem where killing this process would cause it not to restart, and thus the shell would be shut down (however, the background of the desktop would still stay, just no menus, nor the desktop would show.) This would then force the user to manually shut down or restart the computer.

It is important to have auto-restarting processes for certain things because of that. Killing explorer.exe is a fancy way to refresh the shell or bring up the shut-down options, usually.
I really don't know what point you're trying to make here, you're just saying what has already been said.
In Windows NT, Explorer.exe is a protected process, meaning it will (should) be automatically restarted if it crashes or is terminated.
Services can be configured individually using the Services management console in what should be done if the service is terminated; automatically restart, after X crashes do something else, like run a command.

Iyeru wrote: Also, sometimes processes have more than one instance of themselves. For example, svchost.
Well yeah, obviously svchost is the host process for services. You should restart individual services through the Services management console, not through Task Manager (only as a last resort. If you don't know which instance of svchost.exe to kill, you can find out with Process Explorer which PID belongs to which executable)
So when svchost is fully implemented in ReactOS there will be no other required features.
stimpy77
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:23 pm

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by stimpy77 »

Iyeru wrote:
SdC wrote:Services are processes that can generally be restarted independently, according to dependency. System services that kernel modules depend on can not be restarted. Nothing wrong or missing with this aspect in the original NT design.
Some services auto-restart as soon as they are killed, like explorer.exe. Windows 98 and 95 had a problem where killing this process would cause it not to restart, and thus the shell would be shut down (however, the background of the desktop would still stay, just no menus, nor the desktop would show.) This would then force the user to manually shut down or restart the computer.
OK First of all, explorer.exe is not a service. If in Windows XP you don't see it in the Services Manager, it isn't a service. Explorer.exe is merely a shell application that runs in the user session.

Secondly, Windows 98 and 95 (and ME) did not have any Windows Services support whatsoever. The Services architecture was implemented exclusively in Windows NT and the NT-based OS's that followed.

Jon
coldReactive
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:42 pm

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by coldReactive »

stimpy77 wrote:OK First of all, explorer.exe is not a service. If in Windows XP you don't see it in the Services Manager, it isn't a service. Explorer.exe is merely a shell application that runs in the user session.
I saw it in WinXP as a service plenty of times. :|

this is what happens when you shut down explorer.exe as I described.
stimpy77 wrote:Secondly, Windows 98 and 95 (and ME) did not have any Windows Services support whatsoever. The Services architecture was implemented exclusively in Windows NT and the NT-based OS's that followed.
Sorry, I forgot that the program manager was used back then. However, there are task manager utils out there for download apparently. I may have been thinking about Win2000 or Win98 with Novell.
GoBusto
Posts: 579
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:13 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by GoBusto »

Iyeru wrote:
stimpy77 wrote:OK First of all, explorer.exe is not a service. If in Windows XP you don't see it in the Services Manager, it isn't a service. Explorer.exe is merely a shell application that runs in the user session.
I saw it in WinXP as a service plenty of times. :|
I think perhaps you're getting services confused with processes. explorer.exe is a process, not a service. It appears in the task manager under "Processes" but there doesn't seem to be anything explorer-related appearing in my services list.
steveh
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:02 pm

Re: svchost.exe planned?

Post by steveh »

I suppose svc.host.exe will be necessary for internal and external compatibility?
Services. Windows / Reactos mixed domain ...

Will it be possible to make it compatible, but better than the windows version? (i think about blaster & sasser and collegues)
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 4 guests